The tension between Tamil Nadu and the Raj Bhavan is not a recent phenomenon: it has deep roots stretching back to the era of Dravidian politics.
Published Apr 09, 2025 | 11:00 AM ⚊ Updated Apr 09, 2025 | 11:00 AM
Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi and Chief Minister MK Stalin.
Synopsis: The Supreme Court’s verdict represents a critical juncture in India’s federal structure. The judgment reasserts the primacy of elected governments in state affairs, especially in matters where the Constitution envisages the governor as a nominal head acting on the advice of the Cabinet.
In a major and unprecedented judgment, the Supreme Court of India has called out the actions of Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi, declaring his refusal to assent to 10 Bills passed by the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly as unconstitutional.
In doing so, the court has not only nullified the governor’s controversial stand but has also laid down clear timelines to ensure such a situation doesn’t arise again.
The court ruled that once a Bill is presented to a governor, a decision whether to grant assent, return it for reconsideration, or refer it to the President must be taken within one month.
If the governor chooses to act contrary to the advice of the state Cabinet by either returning the Bill or referring it to the President, that process must be completed within a maximum of three months.
This directive is a significant step towards curbing arbitrary delays in the legislative process at the state level.
The controversy started when Governor Ravi withheld assent to 10 important bills that primarily dealt with the administration and governance of universities across Tamil Nadu. These Bills aimed to shift the power of appointing vice-chancellors (V-Cs) from the governor to the state government.
Under the existing structure, the governor, acting as chancellor, had a key role in appointing V-Cs for state universities. The new legislation seeks to amend this by substituting the word “Governor” with “Government” across the statutes governing these institutions.
Moreover, the Bills also stipulate that the removal of vice-chancellors will now rest solely with the state government, setting out a procedure for their dismissal.
This move, according to the Tamil Nadu government, is intended to democratise university administration and bring greater accountability to the process, ensuring that higher education institutions are not left at the mercy of gubernatorial discretion.
Here’s a quick overview of the 10 bills that were at the center of this legal battle:
The universities affected by these Bills include prestigious institutions like Anna University, Madurai Kamaraj University, Bharathidasan University, Bharathiar University, Annamalai University, Periyar University, Manonmaniam Sundaranar University, Tamil Nadu Open University, and many others.
It is worth noting that while most Bills were withheld at the governor’s office, two key bills—the one creating the Siddha Medical University and the amendment concerning the University of Madras (Chennai)—had been escalated to the President for assent after being reserved.
This verdict represents a critical juncture in India’s federal structure. The judgment reasserts the primacy of elected governments in state affairs, especially in matters where the Constitution envisages the governor as a nominal head acting on the advice of the Cabinet.
For Tamil Nadu, the ruling is a direct validation of its efforts to reclaim administrative control over universities. With the chief minister now poised to act as the chancellor in place of the governor, the state government gains a greater say in shaping the higher education landscape.
Chief Minister MK Stalin, who has been a vocal advocate of this transition, had earlier cited the success of the Tamil Nadu Music and Fine Arts University—where the chief minister already serves as the chancellor—as an example of why political accountability in university administration matters.
The tension between Tamil Nadu and the Raj Bhavan is not a recent phenomenon: it has deep roots stretching back to the era of Dravidian politics. As early as the 1960s, Tamil Nadu’s political leaders, especially from the DMK, openly questioned the necessity and role of the governor.
CN Annadurai, the founder of DMK and the first non-Congress chief minister of Tamil Nadu, famously quipped, “ஆட்டுக்கு தாடி எதற்கு, நாட்டுக்கு ஆளுநர் எதற்கு?” — “Why does a goat need a beard, and why does a country need a Governor?”
With this sharp remark, Anna captured the widespread sentiment that governors were redundant figures, often seen as political appointees acting on behalf of the central government rather than respecting the will of the people of the state.
This deep-rooted skepticism was carried forward by successive Dravidian leaders. M Karunanidhi, who succeeded Anna, institutionalised this political philosophy by setting up the Rajamannar Committee in 1969.
The Committee, headed by Justice Rajamannar, emphasised limiting the discretionary powers of governors and strengthening the federal structure. It recommended that the governor should act only on the advice of the elected government and should not interfere with the day-to-day administration or the functioning of legislative assemblies.
The Supreme Court’s verdict on Tuesday, 8 April, therefore, is not merely about ten university bills; it symbolizes the culmination of a decades-long battle that Tamil Nadu has waged for greater autonomy and against what it sees as unjustified interference from the Governor’s office.
It reflects the Dravidian political philosophy that power must remain with the people and their elected representatives — not with unelected constitutional authorities.
In the educational arena, the changes now mean that the state government will have a direct role in appointing V-Cs and managing universities. This is being viewed as a step towards better alignment of educational policies with the developmental goals of the state.
However, it will also place a significant responsibility on the government to safeguard academic freedom and ensure that universities are governed with transparency, merit, and vision.
With the Supreme Court’s ruling in place, the 10 bills now stand validated, and the governor has no option but to give his assent. The state government will swiftly move to implement the changes, starting with the reappointment processes and the restructuring of university governance.
Meanwhile, the pending Siddha Medical University Bill and the Chennai University Amendment Bill, which were reserved for Presidential consideration, will also need a final decision from the Union government.
Tamil Nadu’s battle has national implications too. Several other states, including Kerala and West Bengal, have had similar confrontations with their governors regarding university administration.
This Supreme Court judgment sets a precedent, reinforcing that governors must act as constitutional heads, not political gatekeepers.
Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan responded to the Supreme Court verdict, terming it a victory for democracy.
“The verdict upholds the federal system and the democratic rights of the legislature. It also sets a clear time limit for governors to act on Bills and warns against any attempt to usurp legislative powers,” Vijayan said in a statement.
He noted that Kerala has also faced similar challenges, with Bills passed by the Assembly kept in limbo for as long as 23 months.
The state is currently engaged in a legal battle over the matter.
“This judgment highlights the relevance and seriousness of the concerns we have raised. It is a victory for democracy,” Vijayan added.
(Edited by Majnu Babu).
